On 2 June the Hong Kong Admiralty Court handed down judgment in a case involving two collisions which happened within three minutes of each other.
6月2日香港海事法庭就3分钟内连续发生的两起碰撞案作出判决。
The two collisions occurred in the early morning of 14 May 2011, in Chinese waters in the precautionary area between the East Lamma Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) and the Dangan Shuidao TSS, and involved two outbound container ships from Hong Kong - the MCC JAKARTA and the TS SINGAPORE - and a west bound container ship -the XIN NAN TAI 77 -heading forthe Pearl River Delta. The first collision was between the MCC JAKARTA and the XIN NAN TAI 77, and the second collision was between the MCC JAKARTA and the TS SINGAPORE.
这两起 碰撞发生于2011年5月14日清晨，发生在中国水域的东南丫岛分道通航制（以下称为“TSS”）和Dangan Shuidao TSS之间的警戒区，涉案船舶是从香港出港的两艘集装箱船MCC JAKARTA 和TS SINGAPORE，与另一艘向西驶向珠江三角洲的集装箱船XIN NAN TAI 77。第一起碰撞发生在 MCC JAKARTA 和XIN NAN TAI 77之间，第二起碰撞发生在MCC JAKARTA 和TS SINGAPORE之间。
This is thought to be only the second time a civil case involving collisions at sea has progressed to a full liability trial in Hong Kong, the last time being in 2011 ( The He Da 98 [2011] 5 HKLRD126). This case raised some interesting issues, both on the law and on matters of procedure.
本案是香港第二起涉及海上碰撞的在香港进行全面责任审讯的民事案件，上一次是在2011年（The He Da 98 [2011] 5 HKLRD 126案）。本案在实体上和程序上都有一些有意思的问题。
The interesting issues on the law included whether, as the two collisions were so close together in time, they should be treated as one collision or as two separate collisions for the purposes of apportioning liability; the application in particular, of the overtaking rule (MCC JAKARTA was overtaking the TS SINGAPORE at the time), the crossing rules (XIN NAN TAI 77 was on a crossing course with both MCC JAKARTA and TSSINGAPORE), and Rule 10 (the three ships were all navigating in or near the terminations of a TSS); and, of course, the degree to which each ship was at fault for the collisions and how liability should be apportioned between them.
法律上的问题包括两起如此短时间内的碰撞，（为了分摊责任）是否应该被当作一起碰撞处理，或者按两起单独的碰撞处理；特别是追越规则的适用（MCC JAKARTA当时追越TS SINGAPORE ），交叉相遇规则（XIN NAN TAI 77 与MCC JAKARTA 和TS SINGAPORE两条船都是交叉相遇格局），以及第10条（三艘船均驶入或接近TSS 终点）；当然，也包括每艘船在碰撞中的过错程度和责任如何分配。
The interesting issues on matters of procedure included how the parties various collision actions should be consolidated and, with two separate collisions, to ensure the liability trials were heard concurrently; and the appointment and role of the Nautical Assessorin collision cases in Hong Kong.
程序上的问题，包括在两起独立的碰撞中，各方的多个碰撞行为如何合并，以确保责任分配审理同时进行；航海评估员的聘请及其在香港碰撞审理中的角色。
Most of these issues were resolved by the parties with the assistance of the Court before the actual trial. By the time of the trial it had been agreed that the two collisions should be considered separately; and that the TS SINGAPORE was not at fault in any way for the first collision, but was 5% to blame for the second collision. At the trial the Courtwas required to determine therefore, how the liability of the MCC JAKARTA and the XIN NAN TAI 77 should be apportioned for both the first and second collisions. In doing so, the Court was greatly assisted by the provision of “real time” evidence in the form of electronic replays of the Hong Kong Marine Department’s Vessel Traffic Service port radar and radio systems, and thevessels’ own voyage data recorders; the witness evidence from the Masters ofthese two ships; and by the Nautical Assessor.
上述大多数问题在开庭前、在法庭的帮助下都得以解决。 审判时，各方已同意两起碰撞应该分开审理；TS SINGAPORE在第一起碰撞中没有过错，但是第二起碰撞中承担5%责任。因此，审理中，法庭要决定的是 MCC JAKARTA 和XIN NAN TAI 77在两起碰撞中的责任分配。审理过程中，法庭很大程度上依据的是：香港海事局VTS系统港口雷达和无线电系统的电子数据回放所提供的“实时”证据和船舶自身的航行记录仪数据、两位涉案船长的证人证言、以及航海评估员的协助。
In a carefully reasoned and clearly written judgment, the Court concluded that the MCC JAKARTA was 20% and the XIN NAN TAI77 was 80% to blame for the first collision; and that their collective liability (95%) for the second collision should be apportioned as between them in the same (80/20) proportions. Very helpfully, the Court added a post script to the judgment on the role of the Nautical Assessor and the usual directionsthe Court will make in this regard for the benefit of parties involved in future collision cases in Hong Kong.
在认真分析、清晰表达的判决中，法庭认为在第一起碰撞中MCC JAKARTA 承担 20%的责任，XIN NAN TAI 77 承担 80% 的责任; 在第二起事故中上述两船共同承担95% 的责任，两船之间责任按照同比例（80/20）分配。非常有帮助的是，法庭在判决中了附带地评述了航海评估员角色，评述了在今后的碰撞案件审理中、香港法庭在这方面的通常指引（为了各方的利益）。
Ince & Co represented the MCC JAKARTA.
本案中英士代表MCC JAKARTA。
分享文章
喜欢本文的朋友，请点击手机右上角图标，把文本分享给您的朋友、微信群或发送到朋友圈。
声明
本文所含信息和评论，不作为、也不打算作为英国英士律师事务所（本所）对某个具体问题、给某个具体客户的法律意见。本文只是免费地提供信息，本所已尽合理谨慎保证本文的准确性和及时性。本所不对本文的准确性和正确性承担责任，本所不对任何人士、团体和公司，因依赖本文而做出的作为或不作为及其后果承担责任。如果您需要法律意见或其它专业意见，强烈建议您联系具有相关资格的法律人士或专业人士。
联系我们
北京：
010-5706 9588 (TEL)
beijing@incelaw.com
上海：
021-6157 1212 (TEL)
shanghai@incelaw.com
香港：
00852-2877 3221(TEL)
hongkong@incelaw.com
新加坡：
0065-6538 6660 (TEL)
singapore@incelaw.com
www.incelaw.com